# If chess had a new piece

What would the piece be?

Where would it be placed?

How many of the pieces would be there?

What size would the board be?

How would the piece move?

What would be the value of the piece?

I have often wondered why there is not an archer in chess, as archers were a primary weapon in land warfare for centuries. If there were such a piece it should be placed between the knight and rook. That would increase the board size to 10 by 10 squares (each side having two archers). The archer would move three squares in any straight line but could not move over its own pieces, nor could it move through an opponents piece to capture another. The value of the piece would be slightly less that the knight (perhapes half a point) as it would not have the mobility of the knight. This summer I will be building a board and pieces to fit this configuration.

Chess has had new pieces added several times. Here are a couple versions.

Gomer_Pyle wrote:

Chess has had new pieces added several times. Here are a couple versions.

Interesting. A little to complicated I think. I'll stick with the archers.

Then it would not be chess. A new name would be needed for the new game.

With the pieces we currently have, the only squares unreachable are three or more squares away.

Perhaps some kind of "long knight", that could jump to the sixteen squares (from the centre of a 7x7 box) that cannot be reached by the others:

I think that this piece might be simultaneously too strong and too weak, and difficult to move (unless it was given the ability to move to some of the squares one square away - perhaps just the ones of the opposite colour to the one it currently occupies).

I suppose the board would have to be at least 10x10, an the pieces would be placed between the Queen's Bishop and Queen, and between the King and King's Bishop.

An alternative to having pieces with weird movements might be to have "Transpawns" (on a 10x10) board.

The pieces would be lined up on a player's first rank; the four transpawns (I can't think of a better name at the moment) would start on the second rank; and the Pawns would be lined up on the third rank.

There would be two "silver transpawns" (a la Shogi), that can only move one square diagonally ahead of them (and capture in the same manner). If a silver transpawn promotes it gains the ability to move backwards diagonally one square or forwards orthagonally one square.

There would be two "gold transpawns", that can move to any of the three squares ahead of them (but only capture diagonally, like pawns). If one promotes it gains the ability to move backwards orthagonally one square, left (orthagonally) one square,or right (orthagonally) one square.

There would be no castling; as the transpawns are such weak "pieces" it might be better to use them to make a fortress around the King initially.

The Pawn would still have the option to move two squares forwards on its first turn; and the En Passant rule would be retained.

Threefold Repetition would be an automatic draw.

Stalemate would be an automatic draw.

50 Moves would be an automatic draw (pending revision).

It's not desirable for players to hold up a drawn game indefinitely, whethe from not realising the game is drawn or malice - however, if Checkmates are discovered that require more than 50 Moves, the rule will have to be adjusted somehow to allow for them.

Under some circumstances it might be an automatic draw after fewer moves.

I like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(chess)

The King should move like bishop or knight and to win the game you have to annihilate the enemy army.

No castling, no checking, no stealmate.

I once proposed 'Mighty-Lion Chess', which features a 'Lion' as an extra piece (of course) next to all the usual pieces. This moves as a King, but twice per turn, not necessarily in the same direction (so it can  also reach the 'Knight squares'), and it does not have to stop on a capture (so it can capture two pieces in one turn, or one, and then move on to an empty square where it cannot be recaptured). When it so wishes it could also take its first step over an occupied square without disturbing it. Such a piece is worth about 1.5 times as much as a Queen.

The piece would replace the Queen-side Knight. (An alternative would be to start it on a2/a7, and move up the a Pawn one square, so the original Knight can stay in the game as well.)

Chess variants with only a single unorthodox piece are normally problematic, because after trading the piece, it degenerates to normal Chess. Therefore Mighty-Lion Chess has an extra rule making it very difficult to trade a Lion: Lions cannot capture each other when the victim lion is protected. And when a non-Lion captures a Lion, it is not allowed to do the same on the immediately following turn.

I wouldn't change the pieces but rather the abilities. pawns can now take pieces like rooks and bishops but only moving no more than 2 spaces. queens can now move like knights

the blobfish!

IT WOULD BE THE CAMEL

If chess had a new piece it would be the camel (the 1,3 leaper).

Why?

If you look at chess it works like this.

Rook move to the closest square to the one he is on, excluding the one he is on.  He also able to move as a rider, so any amount of squares in this direction.
Then you have the bishop that move to the closest square to the one he is, excluding the one he is on and the ones rook can move too. He is also a rider.

Now knight also move to the closest squares to the one he is on, excluding the ones rook and bishop move to. This leads to a piece that moves on 8 directions unlike rook and bishop that move 4. So lets not make knight a rider to balance things out.

King move like bishop and rook but just one square (why not knight too ? see later)

Queen is like a super king that will suposedly protect the king, the queen unlike the king is rider. Queen dont move like knight too as you wouldnt be able to create a weaker version of knight move to apply to the king.

Pawn move (only, no capture) as rook and capture (only cant do it without capturing) as a bishop.

The next logical piece to add, would be the camel, a piece the move to the closest squares from the ones he is on, excluding the squares rook, bishop and knight can move to. This results in a 1,3 leaper that like the knight move in 8 directions instead of 4 and so like knight is also not a rider.

Before you ask how the board position would be.

On chess you see they added king and queen on the center, with queen on left side.

Then added the first piece (rook) on the corner, then the next one (bishop) on center near king/queen and then the knight fill the gap.

The board would be 10x10 and be like this

First and last rank would be

rncbqkbcnr

the game would have 10 pawns to each team.

What about a canon, like the one in chinese chess, it works like a rook, but can only capture upon jumping over pieces. Say if I have a canon on a1, and there is an enemy pawn on a3 and an enemy queen on a4, the canon can just jump over the pawn on a3 and capture the queen on a4. The canon cannot capture pieces directly like a rook, however. It would replace the pawn on top of the queenside knight